Eish, What a sour bunch we have here. We are supposed to be 40K players here. If you want to hold a grudge, go play Magic.

All i wanted to do was weight in on the rules discussion around the objectives being predetermined. So my 5 cents worth. * Objectives should be placed as per the rulebook and ITC standard. None of this weird shiat. * Deployments should be rolled for by a judge for ever round. * co-signing for lists does not work unless you are Mr. popular living in a big town.

Will look at the finalized rules in a few months time and see if its worth flying up.

Sjoe lots of reading. Gents, first off big thanks to the judges and organizers for the effort that has been put in so far.

Really folks having run a number of 8th edition tournaments so far I can well appreciate the efforts being made here, particularly having to try and manage something over the interwebs. Judges and organizers stand strong lads we'll be laughing about this all one day.

My only meh moment regarding the rulespack is yes indeed the placement of objective markers. I fell this is a massively strategic element of the game and having them pre-set removes an element of that strategy. So if anything is going to be changed I humbly request that it be that.

My suggestion as I have been doing in the tournaments I've run here in the Cape is as follows.

-opponents roll off and place objectives as per the rulesbook mission.-Once all table have deployed all objectives, judge rolls a dice to determine the deployment zones.-Player who placed the last objective selects table side and players begin deploying as normal.

This will also have the benefit of ensuring that all tables begin deploying at the same time, which I believe will assists with the time management element of the Nationals.

Regarding the list checking, if people need help checking LIST IDEAS as in not their final lists, I will be more than happy to assist with checking of points and detachments etc.

Folks I've always felt the Nationals is the Rols Royce of tournaments for South Africa, it is the closest we'll come to the grand tournaments they hold across the waters. Given the High Stakes of this tournament I don't feel it's totally unreasoanble that effort is being made to ensure all lists are 100% accurate. List checking works both ways folks take the time make sure your points are correct and work with a buddy. Then rock up and take ass and kick names . . . . wait??

While I see there are still some issues to be ironed out, I salute the organizers for the efforts they've made here. Regardless of the outcome and decisions made my Chaos army will be looking to clash with you all at this grand event. I appeal to all involve that we do our best to bury old hatred and cultivates new gentlemen rivalries over this epic game of toy soldiers.

I am totally open to having the objectives be placed by the players and your suggestions for how to determine deployment type are noted. I do also feel that there is a skill in knowing how to place your objectives and being able to place objectives on upper levels helps a lot to keep certain armies humble.

I'll likely set up a poll and have a discussion with the other judges around it. But I do know that AndrewS, who put the first pack together, did put a lot of consideration into those deployments to make the missions interesting and fair.

I still haven't heard any complaints on the missions selected to be played however so I would suggest that you continue to test using them as your baseline.

Shadow Blaze wrote:I am totally open to having the objectives be placed by the players and your suggestions for how to determine deployment type are noted. I do also feel that there is a skill in knowing how to place your objectives and being able to place objectives on upper levels helps a lot to keep certain armies humble.

I'll likely set up a poll and have a discussion with the other judges around it. But I do know that AndrewS, who put the first pack together, did put a lot of consideration into those deployments to make the missions interesting and fair.

I still haven't heard any complaints on the missions selected to be played however so I would suggest that you continue to test using them as your baseline.

The basic ones are great for me. The more things I have to remember, the more time it's gonna take me to do anything. Basic is best.

So some of you may have seen the new poll up on the discussion board, please go and vote there for how you'd like deployments and objectives to be handled.

Then to the much debated clock system! In the end the votes were very close but having discussed it among the judges and seeing the result and how the clocks played at a recent tournament we feel that the logistics and general standing of the players against using them leaves us with the decision to not make use of clocks for nationals this year.

We do suggest that people do give them a try though as we have seen good results while making use of them to speed games along. With the removal of clocks for timing in rounds we will be a lot more stricter on slow play and will have a system in place penalising those that do not get to the later rounds of their matches across their games.

Thank you all for your feedback so far and please let us know if you have any more concerns or suggestions!

We've been keeping an eye out on those tournaments for what they make use of and have used some of their rulings to influence the first rules pack draft. We'll discuss this among the judges, but I have a feeling that we will have true line of sight and not have the lower levels be counts as.